> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:42 PM > To: Saxon, Will > Cc: Edward Ned Harvey; ZFS Discussions > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware > > > I still think there are reasons why iSCSI would be > better than NFS and vice versa. > > > > > I'd love for you to name one. Short of a piss-poor NFS > server implementation, I've never once seen iSCSI beat out > NFS in a VMware environment. I have however seen countless > examples of their "clustered filesystem" causing permanent > SCSI locks on a LUN that result in an entire datastore going offline.
My understanding is that if you wanted to use MS Cluster Server, you'd need to use a LUN as an RDM for the quorum drive. VMDK files are locked when open, so they can't typically be shared. VMware's Fault Tolerance gets around this somehow, and I have a suspicion that their Lab Manager product does as well. I don't think you can use VMware's built-in multipathing with NFS. Maybe it's possible, it doesn't look that way but I'm not going to verify it one way or the other. There are probably better/alternative ways to achieve the same thing with NFS. The new VAAI stuff that VMware announced with vSphere 4.1 does not support NFS (yet), it only works with storage servers that implement the requires commands. The locked LUN thing has happened to me once. I've had more trouble with thin provisioning and negligence leading to a totally-full VMFS, which is irritating to recover from, and moved/restored luns needing VMFS resignaturing, which is also irritating. I don't want to argue with you about the other stuff. -Will _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
